krstf13's comments

Not to be rude. The live playground probably can’t run elixir/erlang code. And it most certainly cannot connect to a remote running node instance. It’s unfortunate, that the angle here is documentation since, while Livebooks are great for testing and documentation ( https://blog.appsignal.com/2022/05/24/livebook-for-elixir-ju... ), they also provide a great environment for experimenting with elixir code. I’m sure docausorus is great, I’m not sure why you would think Livebooks would be a competitor in the same space. As to you asking for in production links, I’d encourage you to install it and test it for yourself.

While Livebook will mostly have an appeal for people already working with erlang/elixir, it does have a few features that are pretty nice.

- it’s collaborative (think Google docs for code) when several people are working on the same instance of a livebook;

- it’s easy to extend with so-called smart cells (which are essentially pieces of gui you can inject in your document https://news.livebook.dev/v0.6-automate-and-learn-with-smart... ). Smart cells are available for various tasks (db connection/ interaction, data frame exploration, ML tasks, maps), and building your own is relatively easy;

- you can turn a notebook into a web app ( https://news.livebook.dev/deploy-notebooks-as-apps-quality-o... )

- you can run your code an a remote elixir node by attaching to it (although this requires some knowledge of distributed elixir/erlang )

So? Laravel uses type hinting, ok.

This has absolutely nothing to do with your previous post grossly misrepresenting a talk. You hadn’t even mentioned Laravel in it.

Type hinting is not equivalent to a static type system, which is what the parent was asking about.

Finally, in either cases, it changes nothing to the fact that the pain points mentioned in the talk were not caused by the lack of a static type system (which is not to say it cannot cause pain points)

You’re misrepresenting what’s being said in this talk (the relevant part of the talk is around the 15 minute mark at : https://youtu.be/XzAupUHiryg ).

The tldr was that they had patched some of the library code without considering the ramifications of the change. At no point in the talk is it said that “switching to Phoenix was a bad idea”.

Also, none of the issues they talk about are related to the lack of static typing.

That’s very likely. In a past life I’ve done a bunch of auditing for m and a, apart the obvious nepotistic paid internships more often than not people thought to be unproductive were really important to the organisation. Think about payroll, legal and the likes. They’re not necessarily productive in terms of the main product, but they help reduce the legal risk for the company and insure that people in the ‘productive departments’ may stay productive. As software developers we tend to only see the number of features/fixes someone pushes to the product as the main metric of productivity, however there’s way more to running a largish company.

He talked about it at length at the most recent elixir conf eu : https://youtu.be/Jf5Hsa1KOc8 .But it might never materialise.

Wouldn’t storing the deleted data in an immutable storage, with time stamp, be much better for auditability ? I mean how could you audit deleted, restored and deleted again data with that setup? Also, while I know it’s not really accurate, I tend to understand relations as sets, it makes me uncomfortable to have soft deleted data that are neither member or not member of the set.

This is, so far, an excellent write up. The motivation section is great, it’s clear, acknowledges that the C version is probably fine and simply states the authors wanted to gain more insights into the process of porting C code. If the rest of this series is half as good as this instalment, I’m eager and excited to read it. A real breath of fresh air. Thank you.

Also, you lie and move the goal posts. You really should say that you don’t wanna pay your employees. Fine by me, but be frank about it. I know I’ll be downvoted here, but the truth is this guy doesn’t want to pay his employees and pretends it’s because of additional costs that burden him. He’d rather give them more, if only they were able to spend responsibly. Yet, he doesn’t know the first thing about taxes, fees and lumps them together. I welcome disagreements, but I wish un readers were slightly more rigorous.

Nope,that’s not correct. Even in English health insurance is not tax, unemployment insurance is not tax... And by the way what you call ‘charges’ is historically‘cotisations’ (fees).

To add to what the parent wrote, depending on your situation (eg unemployment) when your creating your micro-company, you get a grace period (up to 2 years, I believe) during which your fees are substantially reduced. And the fees include social security, with (since recently) roughly the same benefits as regular employees (except for compensation of lost revenues in case of illness, which is more complicated).

This is grossly inaccurate. What you're calling taxes, are fees that allow employee to get several benefits. Practically speaking, these are delayed salary.

They include social security, unemployment benefits, retirement benefits, training ...

When your employee is sick, they can stay at home without losing their pay, and without your company paying for it. They can seek medical treatment without risking bankruptcy.

If you have to lower you activity because business is bad, you can put in place part time unemployment, and your employees won't lose money in the process...

Also, the fees paid by the employer are often subsidised through eg tax credits, reimbursements (up to a certain amount)... So that these numbers are not only inaccurate but also totally meaningless.

You can say publicly that a court decision was politically motivated. What matters is how it is said and somewhat by whom (a member of the government might be held to higher standards).

This can’t be for real and isn’t.

It is illegal to try to criticise a court decision in a way that is designed to impede the justice system and/or to interfere with the independence of the judiciary.

The article is misleading, it’s not what the law says. The law specifically forbids the use of personally identifiable data (ie judges and clerks name) to conduct statistical analysis predictions. This seems to be in line with the privacy laws that require prior consent to allow this kind of private data processing (by private I specifically mean related to identifiable individuals)

This is not what the law says. In France, judgements are anonymized before being published, however the name of the judges and their teams are kept. The law says that the names of the judges cannot be used to predict or analyse decisions from a specific judge/court. Although I can understand why it would be appealing to do so (eg to prove bias...), it could easily be misused to put judges under political pressure, or encourage court shopping by less ethical entities. Also this seems in line with data privacy laws, where you must get prior consent in order to use personally identifiable data. It has nothing to do with analysis of legal decisions in general.

I don’t think it’s a valid comparison though because market sizes aren’t the same and because viewing GDPR as a free speech is far from obvious (it actually requires yogi master like bending abilities) You could argue that anti hate speech laws in some European countries (eg France) are the same. It’s also not necessarily correct that ‘you have to conforms to laws ... to do business in other countries’. Many trades treaties supersede local laws also, when there’s political will it’s perfectly possible to restrict what private businesses can do abroad (eg Iran).

EU is 500M people Saudi Arabia is 40M Also, GDPR doesn’t ‘almost definitely violates the first amendment’, GDPR wasn’t passed by Congress. A GDPR-like rule might violate the first amendment if you allow a really extensive definition of speech, and even in such a setting there would be a lot of room to argue.

My understanding is that these new policies apply to videos, not paid for ads. Maybe these ads are actually an answer to these policies? What I find disturbing is that you could watch the whole ad (in the Polish case) and never know who ran it as you're just provided with a hashtag at the end of it.

You should use HTML.parser and focus on the conversion to markdown. The way you parse HTML in the convert function is very inefficient and can easily produce incorrect results with valid HTML (e.g. <p class="some>stuff">some text</p> )